No, Georgia’s Election Law Is Not ‘Jim Crow 2.0’

It isn’t immune to reasonable criticism, but such comparisons minimize the moral horror of a terrible time.

By
290

The debate over Georgia’s new voting law has been deeply depressing to watch for a number of reasons. The first is that it hasn’t really been a debate so much as a lot of performative shouting from all directions. 

The second is that many of the law’s harshest critics don’t know what’s in it, starting with the president of the United States.

“What I’m worried about is how un-American this whole initiative is,” Joe Biden proclaimed in his first press conference as president. “It’s sick. It’s sick … deciding that you’re going to end voting at five o’clock when working people are just getting off work.” 

The Washington Post fact-checked this claim and concluded, “There’s no evidence that is the case. The president earns Four Pinocchios.” (It’s the Post’s harshest rating.) 

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
290
By
Comments (290)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Rational

    There is a lot of rhetorical sleight of hand used by the opponents of this law. People, and especially clueless CEOs, talk about how it is bad to “limit” the ability to vote. That is more of a marketing principle than a legal one. Of course, we “limit” the vote in all manner of ways. For instance, every state I know requires registration. Try to vote without registering, and you can’t vote. That means registration is a “limitation.” Try to vote if you are under 18? Nope. Also a limitation. Try to vote tomorrow for the 2020 presidential election? Nope, you are too early. Again, another limitation. My point is that, of course, the law “limits” votes. The question is not whether there should be limits, but whether the limits at issue are good ideas or not. Personally, I think our voting system is better, and appears better, when people actually go to the polls over a reasonably short, and defined, period of time. It improves transparency and reinforces voting as a civic virtue. Does that mean I am in favor of using voting laws to deprive my fellow citizens of the “equal protection of the laws.” Absolutely not.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Andrew_McClure_ATL

    Jonah -- Rhetorically you are correct. Jim Crow is a huge and multi-facetted set of things that the bill in ga did not fully encapsulate. But -- the law does give the ability for the GA legislature to overrule and void the votes from Dekalb and Fulton Country -- the largest and largely urban counties of the state. There has been anti-urban sentiment in GA for forever. Its good politics in rural GA to go against Atlanta. But these aspects of the law would have allowed Trump to pull a good-ol-boy move with invalidating Fulton and Dekalb votes had it been available in the last election. These lie-justified laws are not the entirety of what Jim Crow was -- but its definitely a Jim Crow law.

    Collapse
    1. Curtis

      "the law does give the ability for the GA legislature to overrule and void the votes from Dekalb and Fulton Country"

      Big if true - sounds like BS to me

      Collapse
  3. Dave Lundeen

    I'm sorry, the author of (checks notes) "Liberal Fascism" is castigating people for rhetorical excess in comparing a deliberate attempt to undermine the political power of Black people (which this undeniably is) to a worse and more pervasive attempt to undermine the political power of Black People? It's revanchist, it's racist, it's completely indefensible, and it's centered in the heart of the most powerful contemporary center of Black political power in the United States-Atlanta. Just a few years ago a federal appeals court struck down a different set of restrictions in North Carolina aimed at targeting Black voters "with almost surgical precision." https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/us/politics/voter-id-laws-supreme-court-north-carolina.html. Why exactly would we credit the Georgia legislators here with good faith or require our criticisms to be mild so as not to offend by invoking an attempted partway return to segregation? The distance between the Georgia legislature and Jim Crow is a lot smaller than the distance between Mr. Goldberg's ahistorical conception of liberalism and any kind of fascism (maybe we shouldn't hold a book he wrote when he was a mere youth of 39 or so against him, but given how ignorant of history he was then, perhaps we should be suspicious of his ability to make historical comparisons now).

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Luke Thompson (not that one)

      Goldberg's explanation of how fascism is on the American left was well done, thoroughly documented, and in no sense ignorant. Given that he was talking about literal fascists and their connections in American politics, it was also not rhetorical excess.

      Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Kevin Johnson

    Right on, Jonah. The left and its allies want to stop debate about many things by just screaming “racism” or “bigot” at those who disagree. Sadly, many decent people, including those running corporations, are so afraid of the racist/bigot label that they will cave to extremists. The harm from silencing individuals and and getting them fired is bad enough. But the biggest danger is a cultural and linguistic revolution that, while it will silence many temporarily, will inevitably lead to more division and upheaval. Good people simply won’t accept being labeled racist or bigoted without reason.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      Just curious, what do you think of the "replacement theory" discussions Tucker Carlson has been having? Are those racist or not racist?

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Kevin Johnson

        Don’t watch him. Trump claiming Indiana-born judge was partial because his parents are Mexican was clear bigotry. Paul Ryan called it classic racism (in current usage, although “Mexican” isn’t a race.). But I know many accusations of racism against immigration restrictionists (I’m not one) are unfounded. One can favor Canadian, Australian, or other immigration approaches and object to Democratic Party approach with not a hint of racism. No idea where Tucker falls on this, but given potus ( for whom I voted) has joined the sick chorus screaming racism without evidence (on the Atlanta shootings as well as “Jim Crow” accusation, inter Alia) I won’t jump to conclusions. Thanks for the input.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Pat Riot

          Have you ever heard of the, "replacement theory"?

          Biden did not say racism was a motive in the Atlanta killings. He did use that event to remind people of anti-Asian violence that happens in the US, calling for it to stop.

          Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Earl King

    There are two simple facts. One is that poor neighborhoods tend to have less places to vote. They other is a continuing theme that African Americans are incapable of getting ID's and that they mess things up so making them do too much is beyond their abilities. Apparently making follow rules to vote is racist, although every other voting group seems to be able do just fine. Asking African Americans to show ID to buy a beer at a ball game is not racist but voting is. Showing ID to open a bank account is not racist but voting is. Getting on a airplane and having to show ID is not racist but voting is. It is an asinine argument but then again apparently I was born racist or so they say...

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      Here's how voter suppression works.

      First, you perform an analysis of the data to understand the specific behaviors of your opponents voters.

      Next, you make a list of all of the pathways your opponent's voters vote, looking at both behaviors and locations. For instance, you figure out that for every extra mile away a ballot box is, you will generally observe 10% less turnout in that area. Or that your opponent's voters are sometimes averse to certain kinds of government bureaucracy.

      Next, you figure out which of those pathways can be matched to at least plausible-sounding laws blocking those pathways, and pass laws accordingly.

      For instance, imagine if Georgia passed a law requiring voters to list the guns stored in their home. Seems like a reasonable request. Like getting on an airliner, you have to declare things like this. Totally innocent. It's not like gun owners are stupid or lazy, right?

      Of course when this law reduced turnout in rural areas that vote heavily Republican by 15% Democrats would just say it's an amazing coincidence.

      Voter ID, which our country operated just fine without for over 200 years, is not "racist" per se, it's simply voter suppression.


      Collapse
  6. Robert Bailey

    Ok, it’s not Jim Crow. Never thought it was. I object to the Georgia law because it feeds the larger bogus, extremely destructive narrative of a stolen election. And don’t the Trump rubes believe they won the election in G.A??—before the recent change in law..? After all, the Dear Leader alleged they won “in a landslide”, “wasn’t even close.” So why tinker with voting times, access and all that? (Tighten up on ballot counting procedures, observers, oversight, storage, security, etc. all you want). This law was to feed the ego of one mentally deranged man in Mar-a-Lago.
    And everyone knows it.

    Collapse
    1. Tim Johnson

      Biden made the mistake of an inflammatory comment that deflects from the craven George laws themselves. So now the extreme right can debate Biden's comment instead of the indefensible GA laws.

      It's the Trump playbook: Criticize the reaction to Trump's comments (TDS!!!) instead of the comments themselves.

      Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Ed P

    ‘The aggressive, self-serving actions of my favored party at your expense is worthy of criticism...but you are criticizing them wrong’

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Mkapnick

    What problem is the Georgia law trying to fix? Not any sort of voter fraud? No, its Trump's fraud.
    Jonah says: But just because Trump indefensibly put Republican politicians in the position of needing to address “voter integrity” in the wake of the election doesn’t automatically mean what they did is wrong..."

    I disagree. First Trump did not put Repub in the position they are in....they put themselves there by being complicit in the Big Lie and being sycophants to Trump. Second what you are saying is b/c GOP Voters are too stupid not know better, Repubs have no choice as to pass a law that need not have been passed b/c stupid GOP voters believe Trump.

    Maybe GOP politicians could try telling the truth to their voters! Now there is a novel idea!!


    Collapse
  9. Kurt Von Fuchs

    Democrats have often rightly been accused of searching for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. The Georgia law seems to be a classic example of this on me now it's Republicans doing it

    Collapse
  10. Steve Powell

    I am going to agree and disagree with Mr Goldberg. I agree that some kinds of election reform are useful. However, in the case of Georgia it misses the point that prior to the 2020 elections, the elections rules set by Republicans were determined adequate. San's the complaint of Donald Trump what is the problem that we are trying to fix? I left my car and house unlocked. I did it because I would rather people want in and realize there was nothing to steal then break window. I could lock them. But no one was breaking into my car or house nor in my neighborhood. Ergo no problem.

    It really is a Jim Crowe activity as the intent is still the same. This is just all that Trump's apologists can do. But it is all they need. If the black vote can be suppressed 1% because a handful of potential voters find the lines too long, the process too hard, or no drop box in their neighborhood. If all you believe you need to win is move the needle 1% what is the difference if at the end of days you you still win?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Bill Nelson

      “...the elections rules set by Republicans were determined adequate.”
      Those laws were very similar to other states.

      Collapse
Load More